Last visit was: 14 Jan 2025, 21:48 It is currently 14 Jan 2025, 21:48
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
nikitathegreat
Joined: 16 Dec 2021
Last visit: 12 Jan 2025
Posts: 186
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 82
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
Products:
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
Posts: 186
Kudos: 15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
User avatar
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Last visit: 02 Jan 2025
Posts: 1,694
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 766
Expert reply
Posts: 1,694
Kudos: 14,930
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 14 Jan 2025
Posts: 7,212
Own Kudos:
66,515
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,881
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,212
Kudos: 66,515
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Raman109
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 13 Jan 2025
Posts: 761
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 29
Products:
Posts: 761
Kudos: 115
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Understanding the argument -
Most uranium comes from mines.
Extracting Uranium from seawater is more expensive than the price it fetches on the market.
Therefore, until the cost of extraction comes down, the extraction from seawater is unlikely to be commercially viable.

We need to evaluate the argument, and in evaluation, we check the validity of the argument. The correct answers are framed along the lines of assumptions.
What if next year, every country is going to build nuclear power plants to generate electricity, and the mines in mines are not sufficient to cover the exponential surge in demand? The assumption is that if demand is exponentially high beyond what mines can cover, then whatever the cost of extraction is, we'll extract from the sea.

Or what happens if the mines are diminishing at a fast rate? In that case, the supply will plummet while demand is still high. So we can still extract from the sea whatever the cost is. We assume that knowing about supply is essential.

As you can see, there are many questions we can ask. We need to see out of these five options which one is the best of the lot.

Option Elimination -

(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted - OK. Let's take it to two extremes
1. Yes, the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted. It makes us believe less in the conclusion.
2. No, the uranium in deposits on land is not rapidly being depleted. It makes us believe more in the conclusion.

(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined - doesn't matter. Distortion.

(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater - practically says what we already know from the argument. "until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced." Distortion.

(D) Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land - It doesn't matter. Out of scope.

(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater - Out of scope.
User avatar
xiaxyl
Joined: 24 Sep 2024
Last visit: 11 Jan 2025
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 90
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 15
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi
What if for option (b), even if the cost of extraction comes down but the cost of transportation from seawater site is more than that for the mine site, then would it not be necessary to evaluate option b??
KarishmaB
gmat blows
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?


(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted

(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined

(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater

(D) Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land

(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater

Currently uranium comes from mines (deposits on land) and fetches say $100 per pound.
Uranium can be extracted from sea water but that is expensive (say cost of extracting one pound is $150) . So this method is not commercially viable.

Conclusion: If the cost of extracting uranium from seawater is not reduced, this method will remain commercially non - viable.

Since in case of seawater method, cost > price uranium fetches, the method is not viable.
What can make the method viable? Either cost of extraction reduces (to below $100 per pound) or price of uranium in the market increases (to above $150 per pound)
The conclusion says that cost of extraction must reduce. What will help us in evaluating it? What will help us find whether the conclusion makes sense i.e. whether cost must reduce to make it viable? We must find out whether price can increase to above $150 or not.
If price in market will remain at $100, then cost of extraction must come below $100 to make it viable.
If price in the market increases substantially, the cost of extraction may not have to reduce and it may still become viable.

(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted

If uranium on land is depleting rapidly, then price of uranium is likely to increase rapidly in the future and the seawater method may become viable.
If land deposits are huge and many, then price of uranium is likely to stay steady in the future and to make seawater method viable, cost of extraction must reduce. Hence, this option will help us in evaluating whether cost must reduce to make the method viable.

(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined

Where uranium is used is irrelevant.

(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater

We need to find whether we need to reduce cost of extraction from seawater. Whether we have any promises tech to do that currently or not is irrelevant.

(D) Whether the total amount of Uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land

The comparison of amount of uranium in seawater vs that on land is out of scope for us. We are discussing cost of extraction vs price in the market.

(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater

Freshwater is out of scope.

Answer (A)
User avatar
CorporateAsset
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 11 Jan 2025
Posts: 42
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 195
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GPA: 4
Posts: 42
Kudos: 20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

To get further clarity, this is a matter of time:

(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
This is questioning the entire conclusion of whether it is only when the cost is reduced that the extraction would be commercially viable.

(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
This is sort of what the conclusion says. conclusion mentions "till the time" we find a way to reduce cost, this statement mentions that in future, price might reduce, in a way restating/agreeing with the conclusion.
User avatar
CorporateAsset
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 11 Jan 2025
Posts: 42
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 195
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GPA: 4
Posts: 42
Kudos: 20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from the mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that Uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

To get further clarity, this is a matter of time:

(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
This is questioning the entire conclusion of whether it is only when the cost is reduced that the extraction would be commercially viable.

(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the costs of extracting uranium from seawater
This is sort of what the conclusion says. conclusion mentions "till the time" we find a way to reduce cost, this statement mentions that in future, price might reduce, in a way restating/agreeing with the conclusion.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 14 Jan 2025
Posts: 7,212
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,881
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,212
Kudos: 66,515
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
xiaxyl
Hi

What if for option (b), even if the cost of extraction comes down but the cost of transportation from seawater site is more than that for the mine site, then would it not be necessary to evaluate option b??

The argument is concerned with what will happen UNTIL the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced. The author is arguing that costs are ALREADY too high to make seawater extraction commercially viable.

Knowing that there are additional costs is nice. It certainly doesn't hurt the argument, but it doesn't help us evaluate the argument the way (A) does.

For more on choice (A), check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/most-of-the- ... l#p1947043.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7212 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts